Using Model - Pre WWI

About Uncle Sam

James Montgomery Flagg (my Grandfather) created the original Uncle Sam "I Want You". Although most researches will refer to JMF as the model of his original Uncle Sam, nothing could be farther from the truth. My Mother tried her adult life to correct this error, and I will carry on this monumental task.

In 1916, JMF reluctantly accepted a 4th of July project by Leslie Magazine, and eventually found his Uncle Sam one rainy night on a train bound for Parris Island, where he was to unveil a portrait of the Commandant.

His "symbol of our country" was a young, roughly 17 year old, Marine, which he considered the finest branch of our armed forces. He was able to acquire a 24 hour pass for this "boot" not normally allowed off base, and he aged his model's adolescent face by forty years and turned a circus clown's costume into symbolic dignity (as told to me and written by his daughter, my mother, Faith).

This cover was eventually made into a recruiting poster, at the request of the State Dept, and is now recognized as the most famous war poster of our time.

By WWII, JMF had ironically begun to look remarkably like his original Uncle Sam, and he did indeed use his mirror image in several new posters. When FDR is quoted as saying "saving model hire" in a personal letter to JMF, he is referring to the 2nd World War posters.

Faith would say, "I thought you might find the facts more fun than the fantasies."

QuickBooks Affiliate

Home Audio/Theatre

Monday, March 29, 2010

We are in a serious financial crisis. Obama seems to feel he is playing with Monopoly money, but he is now in a danger zone of economic bankruptcy. He either does not have a clue about economics, or he is deliberate in his destruction. Why this man was never vetted is the mystery of the decade. The public is not aware of his academic career, or the subjects he took, or the papers he wrote, much less his grades. I would be curious to see his college writings, and his theses, irrespective of his "books".

As Mr. Samuelson reports, a "bubget crisis" is not some accounting excercise. Many Americans have faced the same situation of using too much credit and not enough income to pay it off. It's not pretty, and extremely difficult to get out from under. But, you didn't get out from under this crisis by charging more on the creditcard. Magnify that by a ba-zillion, and this is what America is facing. Omaba is taking us in the direction of financial suicide, and the choice is either lack of knowledge, or by design as in the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

His power must be weakened, and the November elections can't get here fast enough. Congressman Paul Ryan passed along a brilliant piece by Robert Samuelson in today's Washington Post on our imminent budget crisis, and the reckless health care overhaul:

When historians recount the momentous events of recent weeks, they will note a curious coincidence. On March 15, Moody's Investors Service -- the bond rating agency -- published a paper warning that the exploding U.S. government debt could cause a downgrade of Treasury bonds. Just six days later, the House of Representatives passed President Obama's health-care legislation costing $900 billion or so over a decade and worsening an already-bleak budget outlook.

Should the United States someday suffer a budget crisis, it will be hard not to conclude that Obama and his allies sowed the seeds, because they ignored conspicuous warnings. A further irony will not escape historians. For two years, Obama and members of Congress have angrily blamed the shortsightedness and selfishness of bankers and rating agencies for causing the recent financial crisis. The president and his supporters, historians will note, were equally shortsighted and self-centered -- though their quest was for political glory, not financial gain.

Let's be clear. A "budget crisis" is not some minor accounting exercise. It's a wrenching political, social and economic upheaval. Large deficits and rising debt -- the accumulation of past deficits -- spook investors, leading to higher interest rates on government loans. The higher rates expand the budget deficit and further unnerve investors. To reverse this calamitous cycle, the government has to cut spending deeply or raise taxes sharply. Lower spending and higher taxes in turn depress the economy and lead to higher unemployment. Not pretty.

Greece is experiencing such a crisis. Until recently, conventional wisdom held that only developing countries -- managed ineptly -- were candidates for true budget crises. No more. Most wealthy societies with aging populations, including the United States, face big gaps between their spending promises and their tax bases. No one in Congress could be unaware of this.

Two weeks before the House vote, the Congressional Budget Office released its estimate of Obama's budget, including its health-care program. From 2011 to 2020, the cumulative deficit is almost $10 trillion. Adding 2009 and 2010, the total rises to $12.7 trillion. In 2020, the projected annual deficit is $1.25 trillion, equal to 5.6 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). That assumes economic recovery, with unemployment at 5 percent. Spending is almost 30 percent higher than taxes. Total debt held by the public rises from 40 percent of GDP in 2008 to 90 percent in 2020, close to its post-World War II peak.

To criticisms, Obama supporters make two arguments. First, the CBO says the plan reduces the deficit by $143 billion over a decade. Second, the legislation contains measures (an expert panel to curb Medicare spending, emphasis on "comparative effectiveness research") to control health spending. These rejoinders are self-serving and unconvincing.

Suppose the CBO estimate is correct. So? The $143 billion saving is about 1 percent of the projected $12.7 trillion deficit from 2009 to 2020. If the administration has $1 trillion or so of spending cuts and tax increases over a decade, all these monies should first cover existing deficits -- not finance new spending. Obama's behavior resembles a highly indebted family's taking an expensive round-the-world trip because it claims to have found ways to pay for it. It's self-indulgent and reckless

But the CBO estimate is misleading, because it must embody the law's many unrealistic assumptions and gimmicks. Benefits are phased in "so that the first 10 years of [higher] revenue would be used to pay for only six years of spending" increases, a former CBO director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, wrote in the New York Times on March 20. Holtz-Eakin also noted the $70 billion of premiums for a new program of long-term care that reduce present deficits but will be paid out in benefits later. Then there's the "doc fix" -- higher Medicare reimbursements under separate legislation that would cost about $200 billion over a decade.

Proposals to control health spending face restrictions that virtually ensure failure. Consider the "Independent Payment Advisory Board" aimed at Medicare. "The Board is prohibited from submitting proposals that would ration care, increase revenues or change benefits, eligibility or Medicare beneficiary cost sharing," says a summary by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. What's left? Similarly, findings from "comparative effectiveness research" -- intended to identify ineffective care -- "may not be construed as mandates, guidelines or recommendations for payment, coverage or treatment." What's the point then?

So Obama is flirting with a future budget crisis. Moody's emphasizes two warning signs: rising debt and loss of confidence that government will deal with it. Obama fulfills both. The parallels with the recent financial crisis are striking. Bankers and rating agencies engaged in wishful thinking to rationalize self-interest. Obama does the same. No one can tell when or whether a crisis will come. There is no magic tipping point. But Obama is raising the chances.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

In case State-run CNN wonders why they are losing their audience, a picture speaks a thousand words. Their deception and biased reporting has them in last place where they belong. CNN reported "dozens" attended the Searchlight, NV Tea Party Rally where Sarah Palin spoke.

"Hundreds of people, at least dozens of people - we haven't gotten a count of how many people turned out there. We heard Sarah Palin talk about everything about the campaign, to unseat Sen. Reid to what she calls ObamaCare, on the heels of that health care vote and even talking about her definition of her love of America."

Saturday, March 27, 2010

In the face of this Global Warming farce, don't forget to turn all your lights ON tonight at 8:30, as we did last year. Think where we were one year ago tonight -- still pretty new to what was about to happen. Before all the TEA Party rallys, before all the townhalls, before the 912 March on DC, and before witnessing the corruption going on behind closed doors in our government. Boy, are we a different country today.

We are a country more divided than we have been in decades, a country on the brink of dictatorial takeover and financial ruin, but a country more united in bringing her back to its founding roots. God Bless America

Doug Powers has his own "Earth Hour" on Michelle Malkin:

My Own Earth Hourby Doug Powers, March 27, 2010

Tonight at 8:30 p.m. EDT, my house is going to be lit up brighter than Perth, Australia when John Glenn flew over in Friendship 7. Here’s why…

Another “Earth Hour” is upon us. This is the night we’re supposed to turn off all our lights in solidarity with… darkness, or something. It’s also symbolic of a desire to “take action on global climate change.”

I tend to get a little offended at these kinds of things. For one, in my house, we celebrate Earth Hour every day. We don’t leave lights on in rooms that nobody is in. We keep the thermostat fairly low (mostly because I’m usually too hot). We carpool when possible. We don’t waste gas. We pick up trash alongside the road when we’re walking. We volunteer to clean up the riverwalk, and we plant trees because we like trees — not because we’ve fooled ourselves into believing that planting trees is helping make Streisand’s environmentally-unfriendly concert tours carbon-neutral.

As such, I tend to get a little put off when being preached to by fat cats who swim in their own heated pools, travel in private jets, heat mansions they’re not even living in for months at a time and ride in limo caravans to speeches to tell the rest of us how our Chevy Cobalts, lawn mowers, hamburgers and light bulbs are killing the planet.

Friday, March 26, 2010

The only way to pay for the behemoth government takeover health care bill is with taxes, taxes and more taxes. You conveniently won't hear much about the upcoming taxes until after the November 2010 mid-term elections, and of course the tax increases already implemented will not hit until early 2011 either. The big push will be the european-style socialized Value Added Tax, more commonly known as VAT.

Anyone who has traveled to Europe is familiar with this. It taxes everything, including labor and professional services, so in addition to paying the high cost of -- say -- a lawyer, their services will also be taxed! The difference between Europe and us, is VAT is their form of taxation. Obama will add VAT on top of what American tax paying citizens already pay.

Most of us talked about this coming months ago, but it's never too late to reiterate, especially since this government takeover has passed and reality will not hit right away. As more and more companies are coming out with horror stories about their new tax burdens, this must be one of the biggest parts of the November election campaigns.

Charles Krauthammer writes another brilliant and frightening piece on this Obamanation in National Review:

With the passage of Obamacare, which created a vast new middle-class entitlement, a national sales tax of the kind almost universal in Europe is inevitable.

We are now $8 trillion in debt. The Congressional Budget Office projects that another $12 trillion will be added over the next decade. Obamacare, when stripped of its budgetary gimmicks — the unfunded $200 billion­–plus doctor fix, the double-counting of Medicare cuts, the ten-six sleight-of-hand (counting ten years of revenue and only six years of outflows) — is, at minimum, a $2 trillion new entitlement.

It will vastly increase the debt. But even if it were deficit-neutral, Obamacare would still pre-empt and appropriate for itself the best and easiest means of reducing the existing deficit. Obamacare’s $500 billion of Medicare cuts and $600 billion in tax hikes are no longer available for deficit reduction. They are siphoned off for the new entitlement of insuring the uninsured.

This is fiscally disastrous because, as President Obama himself explained last year in unveiling his grand transformational policies, our unsustainable fiscal path requires control of entitlement spending, the most ruinous of which is out-of-control health-care costs.

Obamacare was sold on the premise that, as Nancy Pelosi put it, “Health-care reform is entitlement reform. Our budget cannot take this upward spiral of cost.” But the bill enacted on Tuesday accelerates the spiral: It radically expands Medicaid (adding 15 million new recipients/dependents) and shamelessly raids Medicare by spending the $500 billion in cuts and the yield from the Medicare tax hikes on a new entitlement.

Obama knows that the debt bomb is looming, that Moody’s has warned that the Treasury’s AAA rating is in jeopardy, and that we are headed for a run on the dollar and/or hyperinflation if nothing is done.

Hence his deficit-reduction commission. It will report (surprise!) after the November elections.

What will it recommend? What can it recommend? Sure, Social Security can be trimmed by raising the retirement age, introducing means testing, and changing the indexing formula from wage growth to price inflation.

But this won’t be nearly enough. As Obama has repeatedly insisted, the real money is in health-care costs — which are now locked in place by the new Obamacare mandates.

That’s where the value-added tax comes in. For the politician, it has the virtue of expediency: People are used to sales taxes, and this one produces a river of revenue. Every 1 percent of VAT would yield up to $1 trillion a decade (depending on what you exclude — if you exempt food, for example, the yield would be more like $900 billion).

It’s the ultimate cash cow. Obama will need it. By introducing universal health care, he has pulled off the largest expansion of the welfare state in four decades. And the most expensive. Which is why all of the European Union has the VAT. Huge VATs. Germany: 19 percent. France and Italy: 20 percent. Most of Scandinavia: 25 percent.

American liberals have long complained that ours is the only advanced industrial country without universal health care. Well, now we shall have it. And as we approach European levels of entitlements, we will need European levels of taxation.

Obama set out to be a consequential president, one on the order of Ronald Reagan. With the VAT, Obama’s triumph will be complete. He will have succeeded in reversing Reaganism. Liberals have long complained that Reagan’s strategy was to starve the (governmental) beast in order to shrink it: First, cut taxes; then, ultimately, you have to reduce government spending.

Obama’s strategy is exactly the opposite: Expand the beast, and then feed it. Spend first — which then forces taxation. Now that, with the institution of universal health care, we are becoming the full entitlement state, the beast will have to be fed.

And the VAT is the only trough in creation large enough.

As a substitute for the income tax, the VAT would be a splendid idea. Taxing consumption makes infinitely more sense than taxing work. But to feed the liberal social-democratic project, the VAT must be added on top of the income tax.

Ultimately, even that won’t be enough. As the population ages and health care becomes increasingly expensive, the only way to avoid fiscal ruin (as Britain, for example, has discovered) is health-care rationing.

It will take a while to break the American populace to that idea. In the meantime, get ready for the VAT. Or start fighting it.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Make no mistake, America is going through its second revolution. She has witnessed the full blown threat of government takeover, and this is not the foundation on which this country was based. This one is very different, because it's not blood in the street, but an awakened America engaged as never before at the polls, at TEA Party rallys, at town hall meetings, on the web, throwing their hat in the ring as a candidate, rounding up votes, holding meetings and seminars, sounding the alarm about backroom shenanigans, sounding off about losing education and freedom of religion in our schools, and becoming educated like never before in their lifetime. As Minority Speaker, John Boehner, said the other day, violence and threats are unacceptable.... channel it into positive change.

This is a Christian country. It was founded by Christians, founded on Christian principles. The founding documents, the Declaration of Independence were written by Christians. This country was founded explicitly on a belief in God. Ann Coulter

The passage of this horrific health care government takeover has knocked so many of us off our kilter, but we have many inspirations from which to get our strength. Many of them come from the words of our Founding Fathers, and personally, it also comes from the words of our greatest modern day president, Ronald Wilson Reagan. From wherever it comes, let it motivate you, give you peace, fight the good fight against tyranny, and never give up -- never give in.

Late Sunday night, in a narrow and partisan vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the most significant piece of social legislation in over seven decades. It did so in the face of overwhelming and principled opposition from the American people. Large majorities of Americans oppose this legislation because it offends the historic American dedication to the principle of self-government.

They understand that this new law will accelerate Washington's intrusion into our most personal and private decisions.

This is why opposition to this bill will only grow. Supporters of this bill argue that popular hostility will recede upon its passage. But, rather than cementing our descent into a European-style welfare state, last night’s passage of Obamacare is best seen as a historic turning point, a true catalyst for real change.

I write to reassure our supporters, the conservative movement, and the American people at large that The Heritage Foundation will do all within its power to keep this issue alive in the public square and make the intellectual case for the repeal of this act. We will bring all our resources to bear on behalf of those who believe America is and will always remain the Land of the Free.

This, rest assured, can be done. The American people are never permanently thwarted. President Obama's health care legislation can and will be repealed.

Those who supported this bill are our fellow Americans, and we do not question their good will or patriotism. In public policy, however, good intentions alone do not suffice. And let there be no mistake, our philosophical differences with supporters of this bill are profound. The reason government-run health care has been the holy grail of the left for decades is that liberals realize as much as we do that it is a giant step toward the creation of a European-style welfare state. This is an evolution Americans have always resisted because it is alien to our national character.

If there is one good thing about the past year—one in which we have witnessed unprecedented horse-trading, press stunts, midnight votes and political manipulation in both houses of the U.S. Congress—it is that the American people have come away educated as never before about the differences between these two visions for America. Americans are strongly opposed to this bill not because they have been hoodwinked but because they understand this bill both in its particulars and at an instinctive, gut level.

They understand this health care bill forces individuals and employers to buy insurance policies designed by government bureaucrats. This intrusion is intended to follow us from cradle to grave.

Instead of empowering families and individuals to make their own choices, Obamacare empowers the bureaucracy to make those decisions for them. It is this unelected bureaucracy, unanswerable to the electorate, that will determine the content of health benefits packages, including medical treatment and procedures, and how much will be paid for those services. Yesterday’s legislation brings us one step closer to fully government-run medicine, with expanded government power over the financing and delivery of medical services that is sure to ration care in the name of cost control.

You will hear the left say this new entitlement will be popular with the American people. Do not believe them for a second. Yes, 32 million people will gain the theoretical right to health insurance. But over half of that coverage comes from placing at least 16 million more Americans into Medicaid, an unpopular and overextended welfare program that already rations care.

Americans will not stand for it. The American love for liberty prevailed in our founding, and will prevail once again.

In December of 1773, to protest unjust taxation, a group of American colonists dumped tea in Boston Harbor. The punishment for that first Tea Party was a series of intrusive laws passed by Parliament that were so oppressive that they could only be described as the "Intolerable Acts."

Obamacare is today's Intolerable Act. And just as the colonists banded together to enact change after those acts were passed, so should America respond to Obamacare. This law must be repealed.

Much of the fight against this bill will be led by the individual states, a process we encourage. All told, 33 states have already taken steps to challenge various aspects of Obamacare, including its unprecedented mandate that every American purchase health insurance or face a steep penalty for noncompliance. Four additional states will have this question on the ballot in November.

On Capitol Hill, the initial battle over Obamacare will occur when Congress considers whether to fund the tens of thousands of new federal bureaucrats necessary to implement the new law. In the tradition of the Hyde amendment, which prevented federal funding for abortions through annual limitations appended to appropriations bills, conservatives should look to the appropriations process as our first line of defense. Straightforward funding limitations would prevent any Administration official or any bureaucrat from implementing the law.

Our health care system requires reform, and we have long advocated measures to improve our system. We can and should strengthen the ability of American families to choose the coverage they want, rather than giving that power to Congress and its agency bureaucrats. We can also spur competition and choice to bring efficiency and lower costs to the health system, in place of the bill’s deadening regulation and damaging price controls. And, above all, we should foster state innovation rather than Washington-based central planning.

But such reforms can only be considered once this tragedy of arrogance has been fully and completely repealed.

Fortunately, there are no permanent victories or defeats in Washington. For millions of Americans and for Heritage, Round One of this fight is over. Today, The Heritage Foundation is answering the bell for Round Two. Join our fight; become a part of our mission. Help us educate our lawmakers, as well as those who aspire to become tomorrow’s lawmakers. Together we can make the persuasive case for repeal of this Intolerable Act and thereby return us to our American destiny.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

As the left rejoices over their monumental victory, conservatives double down on the upcoming 2010 elections and their campaign strategy. "Repeal the Bill" is a good start, but should not be the focus, as it will be a difficult road and Obama will veto any attempt.

The eye-opening shenanigans by the left such as the backroom bribes, payoffs, and threats in their eternal quest for big government; the takeover of the private sector in financial institutions, the car industry, insurance companies, and now health care; their road to a socialistic re-distribution of wealth; the doubling and tripling our deficit .... should be their focus.

More importantly, the conservatives cannot think this is in the bag. Under-estimating Obama's thug policies and the left would be suicide for a conservative comeback. They need to accent on the revulsion the American people are feeling after the actions of the left this past year, and make sure to hold the momentum.

Marc Rotterman write an important piece on the left's attack on conservatives, their movements, and talk radio in American Spectator:

As I write, Congress has just passed Barack Obama's signature issue -- healthcare reform. After a year of stops and starts, imposed deadlines and rancorous debate, President Obama and his allies have prevailed.

He does, in fact, have a victory. And where I come from, a victory is a victory.

Many of my Republican and conservative brethren view this partisan piece of legislation as a stake through the heart of the Left and some are already measuring for new drapes in the Speaker's office.

In fact, in some quarters of the Republican Party "irrational exuberance" has taken hold. Barack Obama's presidency is being compared that of Jimmy Carter.

That, in my view, is a mistake.

Conservatives and Republicans who underestimate President Obama do so at their own electoral peril. Unlike Jimmy Carter, Obama is a true believer, someone who understands that transforming policy translates into votes and a citizenry that is more reliant on the federal government. And unlike Carter, Obama is a streetwise, tough politician who will not give an inch when it comes to his vision of a "New America" -- one that is modeled after European socialism.

Starting now, the Obama administration will try to position him as a modern day LBJ -- getting things done for the middle class and the poor. The administration, and its allies in the mainstream media will echo Obama's belief that he is transformative figure and that healthcare legislation is akin to the historic Civil Rights Act of the 1960s.

And make no mistake about it -- Barack Obama's next agenda item is "immigration reform" which, unless it is defeated, will further broaden the Left's constituency, strengthen the unions, and undermine the rule of law.

By the way, Obama and his team will not stop there. Those who openly oppose Obama's policies will continue to be targets. First the liberal establishment went after Rush Limbaugh and for months now -- former Vice President Dick Cheney. The Left and progressives' newest devil is Glenn Beck and by extension the Fox News network.

One only has to watch MSNBC and its commentators' rants against Beck or read the Washington Post's two recent hit pieces on Fox and Beck -- one by the former discredited New York Times editor Howell Raines, the other by Howard Kurtz, a CNN employee who hosts the CNN show Reliable Sources -- to understand how far the progressives will go to torpedo Beck and Fox.

My point is that Obama and his allies view governing and campaigning in the same context -- "winning" means all out war and by any means necessary. In contrast, Republicans have, in the past, viewed campaigns from a "management perspective."

To compete and to win in 2010 Republicans and conservatives must outline and define what Obama has in store for this nation. And that is the remaking of the nation as we have known it from its inception. We cannot count on a bad economy to propel us to a majority, or outrage over the healthcare bill.

Yes, they are still a very important part of the debate.

But, we have an obligation in our messaging and advertising to illustrate in stark terms what "Obama's transformation" means to America, its families, traditions and culture. In short, we must campaign against the Left as if we were at war.

One thing we know for certain is that Obama and his cohorts are committed to their ideology and they will do what it takes to stay in power. To win, we must understand our opponents and maneuver according to circumstance.

Marc Rottermanworked on the national campaign of Reagan for President in 1980, served on the presidential transition team in 1980, and worked in the Reagan Administration from 1981 to 1984. He is a senior fellow at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, North Carolina, and a former member of the board of the American Conservative Union.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

We have much to be grateful for, and more importantly, a need to fight on for the all important November 2010 elections. They are only a short 7 months away, and as Erick Erickson of Red State said, the time for fence sitting is over. It's time to choose and campaign with all we've got, and keep our chin up. Proud to be an American.

Rich Lowry writes a great piece on five reasons not to despair in National Review:

Five Reasons Not to Despair
Democrats have won a battle, not the war.by Rich Lowry, March 22, 2010

If your heart didn’t sink when the Senate bill went over the top in the House last night and Democrats began chanting “Yes, we can” on the floor, you’re either not a conservative or inured to all disappointment. Conservatives will be temped to despair in the weeks ahead, as the magnitude of this defeat and its potential consequences sink in. But there are good reasons not to despair. Here are five:

Public opinion. Democrats were never able to convince the public of the merits of their reform — despite having the highest-profile platforms in American politics, including a president who wore out his teleprompter-festooned bully pulpit for a solid year. Liberals comforted themselves by saying that the bill gained popularity at the end. But look at the Wall Street Journal/NBC News polling on Obamacare. In September 2009, 39 percent thought it was a good idea, 41 percent a bad idea. In January, it was 33 a good idea, 46 a bad idea. The latest poll had it at 36–48 — basically flat from the beginning of the year. Fox News polling had the bill at 38 percent approval and 48 percent disapproval in mid-September 2009, then at 34–57 in December, and 35–55 in its latest survey — again, essentially flat. The public has displayed an irreducible reservoir of common sense throughout the debate, which will be something crucial to draw on during the fights to come.

Structured so can it be overturned. The classic play in entitlement politics is to hook people on the benefits, making repeal impossible and growth inevitable. Obamacare is built so the major benefits, the subsidies, don’t kick in for years. This is part of the fiscal ruse — if the benefits kicked in immediately, Democrats would have exceeded their politically dictated ceiling of $1 trillion in official costs over the first ten years. The delay means there’s time to reverse key aspects of the bill before they take effect.

There’s no doubt that this will be difficult. Democrats have created a fact on the ground in the form of the bill, which puts the power of inertia on their side. Republicans will have to defeat an incumbent president in 2012, never easy. And they will have to offer alternative policy ideas that carry the day. If the odds are against them, all of this is still within the realm of the possible. One way to look at it is that Obama and Nancy Pelosi won the debate within the Democratic caucus over whether to pass a maximalist bill. But they haven’t yet won the debate in the country, which will rumble on.

A moment of clarity. Democrats generally win national elections by posing as moderates. In 2006, congressional Democrats sounded like a reasonable alternative to a corrupt Republican party that was losing a major war. In 2008, Obama usually portrayed himself as a moderate post-partisan; if the nature of Obama’s governance had been blatantly forecast back then, he might not have won, despite the financial crisis, the unpopularity of Bush, and the weakness of McCain’s campaign.

It’s a long time until 2012, but the health-care bill and the way it passed will make it much harder for the president to obscure his ideological commitments. There’s even less reason than before for anyone to misunderstand what Obama and his Democratic party are fundamentally about.

The truth will out. Obama has been saying things about his bill that are untrue: It won’t make premiums go down; it won’t control costs; it won’t allow everyone who likes their current insurance arrangements to keep them. These false representations may well make the bill more unpopular rather than less after passage.

Democrats learned with the stimulus that it’s not much fun to defend a law that they vastly oversold prior to passage. They’ll have exactly the same experience with health-care reform. The legislation on which they’ve staked so much will not withstand its first contact with reality.

The GOP has been better than expected. I remember listening to a Republican congressional leader answer questions about health care at an off-the-record event back in early 2009, and feeling profoundly depressed. He sounded as if he’d already given up. It’s been a very pleasant surprise how Republicans rose to the occasion over the last year. The bill sank in public opinion mostly of its own weight, but Republicans were relentless in their critiques and held together to oppose it. If Mitch McConnell hadn’t held his caucus together, Scott Brown wouldn’t have become the 41st vote and almost brought the bill down. At the health-care summit, Republicans offered an alternative vision for an entirely different direction in reform and found a star to articulate it in Paul Ryan. They couldn’t stop the large Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate from passing the bill, but the way they performed provides hope for the ongoing debate.

None of the above means we should minimize what happened yesterday. It’s a severe blow. But if we are to recover, we can’t despair.

As we pick ourselves up from a gut-wrenching weekend, a battle has been won by Obama and company, but not the war on liberty. This is a new day, and there is no room for compromises. Bi-partisan should be removed from our language, because there is no such thing. The Libs would never compromise in any way, and neither should conservatives anymore. RINOs must be weeded out and defeated. We need to be bold. We need to be agressive. We need not compromise -- and lose. (Thank you Mark Levin for your inspiration)

This weekend was a hard bite to swallow, but we should be inspired. Liberals have finally exposed themselves for what they truly are, and we move ahead from there. There is no holding back and making nice. It's time to say goodbye to the wishy-washy likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. We don't have the time. The Democrats have to be removed in the next election, and, God willing, kept out forever after revealing their true colours this past 15 nightmarish months.

We have new heros with which to rejoice and support, such as the ever eloquent Paul Ryan, and the artful Eric Cantor, and John Thune, not to mention my personal favorite, Jim DeMint. We have up and coming patriots such as Marco Rubio and Chuck DeVore. There's a lot to be thankful for and so many of them gave moving, passionate speeches prior to the vote.

Today, in addition to this administration's marxist re-distribution of wealth, we can add the re-distribution of health.

Tony Gallardo writes a great piece in American Thinker about Obama's Pyrrhic Victory, and it surely is:

Let me get this out of the way first; congratulations, Mr. President!! You won! Just as you won the presidency in 2008, and were so quick to tell Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, early in your administration.

I guess that makes you a winner.

Let me tell you a story.

There was a king in ancient Greece named Pyrrhus, who was renowned as a great man and a great general. He was ruthless and fought ferociously to completely vanquish his enemies. In 280 B.C. he defeated the Romans, and he defeated them again the next year.

These victories were so costly that he lost most of his own forces and he was reported to have said "One more such victory and we are lost."

His victories were so costly that he was forever weakened and never won again.

Mr. President, savor your victory while you can, because I believe you have set in motion a collection of actions and reactions that will further divide the citizens of this great country and set them against each other.

There will be lawsuits, higher taxes, cost shifting from Medicare to the newly entitled, higher deficits, more intervention into the private sector and a weakened economy.

There will be decreased prosperity.

There will be continued unrest across America for years.

This victory comes with a high price. The cost is greater than the benefit.

As Pyrrhus discovered, you may have won, but you and the Democrats in Congress lose.

This will be your legacy.

"We the people" have two choices. We can give up and allow our selves to be treated like farm animals; managed, controlled, and subjected to a humiliating existence, or we can begin a long term fight to regain our representative form of government.

Monday, March 22, 2010

As government's intrusion gets bigger and bigger, so does their census bureau. The purpose of the census is to count heads, age and sex -- period. Per Article One, Section 2 of the Constitution, Clause 3. “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Jon Voight to join TEA Partiers in Washington DC this Saturday, March 20th at 12 noon EST on the Capitol steps. Pack an overnight bag and join him, along with Rep. Michele Bachmann to fight against the ACORN brass-knuckle bullies and a tyrannical administration.

Join in and tell them to vote NO on government run healthcare, NO to reconciliation, and NO to the unconstitutional "Deem & Pass". (Sounds like Demon Pass)

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

As Pelosi and Obama attempt to override our Constitution, we can let them know that's not okay. It seems they feel their word is the final word, and like it or not, they will do whatever it takes to make you their serf.

We fought to rid this country of dictatorial rule at the sacrifice of millions and millions of precious lives. It's Taxation Without Representation all over again. Let's keep up the fight to maintain our Constitution, and Eagle Forum has a "TAKE ACTION" helpful way. Phyllis Schlafly also writes on the shame of this administration:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) shameful scheme to "deem" the Senate Obamacare bill into law without a vote violates Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

As we mentioned in our action alert two days ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is plotting to use a parliamentary procedure to prevent a recorded vote on the Senate Obamacare bill in the House because she lacks the necessary 216 votes needed to pass it. This shameful tactic to simply "deem" the Senate bill as passed by bringing the 2,309-page "fixer" bill to a House vote has been dubbed as the "Slaughter Solution," aptly named after liberal House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY).

The "Slaughter Solution" violates Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution which states:

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives
and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law,
be presented to the President of the United States."

The Slaughter Solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote.

The Senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill, but this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form.

As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of NY (1998), a bill containing the "exact text" must be approved by one house and the other house must approve "precisely the same text."

What the House is aiming to do is attach a new bill to an existing bill in order to create the illusion that only half of this bill is receiving a vote.

Arthur Fergenson, a constitutional law expert and the lawyer who litigated Buckley v. Valeo-the case which enshrined campaign spending as a form of constitutionally protected speech-attests that a bill must be the same item, not a collection of multiple bills.

The bill receiving a vote in one chamber must be the identical piece of legislation that receives a vote in the other chamber in order to become law.

If the Senate bill does not receive a direct vote in the House, then it is understood that the "fixer" bill is only being agreed to because it contains changes, adjustments, or fixes to an existing piece of legislation.

The Senate has never voted on this exact package, or pairing of Obamacare bills. This means that if President Obama were to sign such a package, the presumed law would be a nullity.

Thus, a vote for the Slaughter Solution rule is a vote for the Senate Obamacare bill.

"Democrats are trying to use a sneaky snake oil gimmick. Let's have an up-or-down vote on this bill and not hide behind some procedural mumbo jumbo!"

Rep. Poe described this stealth move perfectly-as an attempt to give vulnerable Democrats cover and the excuse that they did not actually vote in favor of Obamacare becoming the law of the land. Rather, they are trying to make the claim that they only voted for the "fixer" bill, not for the highly objectionable, corrupt, bribery, and extortion-ridden Senate bill.

The House Democrat Leadership is committed to using this underhanded approach in order to get the Senate health care bill to Obama's desk for signing and to become lawbefore he leaves for his vacation to Indonesia at 1:00pm Eastern on Sunday, March 21st.

Tell your Representative that a vote for the Slaughter Solution rule is a vote for Obamacare--just vote NO!

The House GOP Leadership plans to force a vote on a resolution tomorrow, Thursday, March 18th, to block the Slaughter Solution. Recent convert to the Republican Party, Rep. Parker Griffith (R-AL), will introduce the resolution. Please continue to make your phone calls and urge the target Democrat representatives to support the GOP's resolution!

Continue targeting these 32 undecided Democrats. This is the most accurate and most frequently updated target list that exists in Washington, D.C. Be sure to refresh the page frequently for the most accurate tally. Your phone calls and emails are so important, and they ARE working! Your activism is the reason the floor vote has not yet been called! Keep up the good work-we need you in this fight to save America! And, don't forget about the district offices.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

This is a short piece and a prayer from the brilliant Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum that I wanted to share with you. At this time when Congress is attempting to destroy our foundation and despair creeps in, time to take a break, count our blessings and get a grip on the knowledge that we have come from dark days like this before.

God bless all you Patriots, and God bless America.

A Very Special Call to Prayer from Phyllis Schlafly
March 16, 2010

Dear Eagle Forum Members Nationwide,

In the midst of our current battle against the looming government-takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, I would like to take a few moments to recall an inspiring story from my days fighting against the feminists' Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Unlike our present battle, all "the powers that be" were against us back then - both houses of Congress, three Presidents (Nixon, Ford, and Carter), all of the First Ladies, all the Hollywood celebrities, 99% of the media, and even a large percentage of the American public.

The day of the most crucial vote on ERA in the Illinois Legislature was very dramatic. We had done all we could to line up the votes, but we knew we were two votes short. As the votes lighted up on the electronic board, we all held our breath in anxiety. Then, a great shout went up from the gallery - "We won!"

ABC put then-president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) Eleanor Smeal in front of a news camera and asked her, "What happened?!" She replied, "Something very powerful was against us, and I don't mean people."

Eleanor Smeal didn't know what it was, but we did. We knew that we had the truth on our side and that the good Lord had brought us the votes from the two Chicago legislators who had never voted with us before.

And so, in the remaining days and hours before the most crucial vote the U.S. Congress will ever cast, I ask you to pray that Our Lord intercedes in this battle for the future of our nation and that the truth, once again, prevails.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Why are we a center right country? Possibly because after decades and decades of liberal intervention, the American people know what they have to do to survive -- keep them out of power. But, every so often the Libs need to be in power to remind us of their tyrannical rule. The problem is that they have done it so many times, government takeovers have grown by leaps and bounds. Just look at what's happened over the past 14 months with long standing banks, long standing car companies, insurance companies, education, and healthcare.

The Liberals have pushed us in a corner again, but in record time this go round. Can we repair the damage, especially if they ram this healthcare down our throats? Pass government sponsored college education [paid by the tax payers, of course]? Our government is being run by people who have never run a business, never had a real job, or balanced a budget. They are making decisions that will effect the lives of over 300 million people without regard for our founding documents, how it's done, and the will of the people, using underhanded tactics that would shame the devil. If a bill cannot stand on its own two legs, it needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, but the Libs always know better.

Frank Fleming write a great piece in Pajamas Media about the holy grail of liberalism:

America Loves ConservatismAmerica hates patronizing dimwits who would spend their money and push them around, thus making liberalism very unpopularby Frank J. Fleming, March 15, 2010

So where are we politically as a country right now? After the 2008 election, people were talking about a liberal realignment in America. Conservatism had died under Bush, and now it was time for liberals to bring us to a utopia filled with unicorns and rainbows.

Some claimed we were still a center-right country, but they were mocked for ignoring reality and told they would not get to pet the unicorns. And while conservatives licked their wounds, all the elites wrote out their complicated plans for how the Republicans could forge a comeback, which involved being more open and accepting and less angry at liberalism. You know, being a bunch of sissies.

Conservatives, as stubborn as they are, continued being angry and yelling a lot in the form of tea parties. That, apparently, was the winning strategy. As seen in Virginia and New Jersey and in the still unbelievable victory in Massachusetts, conservatism is back in record time, and liberalism is back in fear of destruction. The only reason those who said we were still a center-right country were wrong was because they put the word “center” in there. So what’s going on here? Does America really love conservatism that much? Or does it just intensely hate liberalism?

Now, Americans do love conservatism. That’s pretty indisputable. They like freedom, guns, keeping their own money, the rule of law, individualism, and killing bad foreigners. One of the reasons Fox News destroys the other news stations in the ratings is that it’s going for the big conservative slice of the pie while all the others are competing over the little liberal slice — like rats fighting over scraps that fall from the table. Annoying, obnoxious rats. Really, how many people could there possibly be who don’t find Keith Olbermann to be a cartoonish joke?

Now some people interpreted 2008 as a repudiation of conservatism, but that’s pretty silly in hindsight. People were tired of Bush and Republicans mucking around, but it wasn’t like it was their conservatism that made people angry. There weren’t people taking to the streets yelling, “Stop cutting our taxes! And bring us bigger government!” Well, maybe some hippies did that, but no one ever listens to them.

Also, people were tired of the wars, but it wasn’t the conservative part of the wars — the smashing our enemies — that people didn’t like. Approval was huge for the initial parts of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars where the Taliban and Saddam were overthrown. What people didn’t like was that we stuck around to rebuild things — the more left-leaning nation-building stuff. That’s why it was so odd that liberals turned against it so much, basically saying to the Afghanis and Iraqis, “Screw you! You’re on your own!” That’s supposed to be the conservative mantra.

So basically in 2008 you had people tiring of the Republicans, who weren’t exactly acting like the torchbearers of conservatism, and electing Obama for a change, hoping all his empty rhetoric meant he’d just sit around and be smiley, and they’d have a break from all the bickering and the whiny hippies. But Obama went liberal, and, as is quite obvious now, people hated that. Hated that. Hated. Did not like. Thus you had the quickest change in the public’s opinion of the president’s competence since William Henry Harrison dropped dead thirty-two days in. Liberals just came in and started going crazy, demanding everyone’s money and spending it on whatever they wanted — they were like muggers but much, much more patronizing — and it fired up the public’s anger in record time.

Americans hate being pushed around in the form of government expansion or a bunch of liberal elites spending hundreds of billions of dollars when it’s quite obvious none of them have the economic know-how to run a hot dog stand. And that’s Americans everywhere — even in Massachusetts! The recent election made that inarguable; the number one complaint of those voting Republican was the Democrats’ health care takeover. Democrats worked hard toward achieving that holy grail of liberalism, and it got them the most stunning defeat since … well, ever.

So America loves conservatism and hates liberalism, but which has been the greater factor recently? The two do seem pretty intertwined, because a big part of conservatism is hating useless people who are convinced they should run everything, i.e., liberals. Still, if I had to pick one as the more powerful force in politics, it would be hatred of liberalism. While everyone hates patronizing dimwits who would spend their money and push them around, most people don’t care enough to join a political movement and wax on philosophically about the principles of conservatism. Then again, not caring is actually kinda conservative. Still, it’s not like you can build a consistent movement out of that and keep people interested when they have their own lives to deal with.

The best strategy to keep the public engaged is to expose liberals for what they want to do. Liberals will always try to hide it, but if people see clearly what liberals’ goals are, they’re going to hate those and want to smash them. That will always be true while America is still around. Unfortunately, as we now see, the easiest way to do that is to put liberals in charge.

Frank J. Fleming writes political humor at IMAO.us and usually has quotes from The Simpsons hidden on his sniper rifles.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

As Americans watch the shenanigans of Democrats, the shock and awe of the latest cheap maneuver may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Imagine the horror of the Founding Fathers if they witnessed a Speaker of the House tell the American people she will "deem" a bill to have passed, because she can't get the votes. Hearing the outrage across the wires, it is mind boggling more people have not protested. Where is the press on this? The Constitution Be Damned, as Red State wrote. With the no votes piling up, tyranny is right at our doorstep.

What's being done by these radicals is worse than unconstitutional. If they get away with "deeming" a bill passed, where does it stop? Deeming Cap & Trade, deeming Illegal Amnesty, deeming youth camps, deeming the next president, deeming him King? God help us.

Here and here is a list of the 64 Congressmen who voted for the Stupak Amendment, the 30 potential swing votes, the ONE Republican yes vote, and a few other potential votes who originally voted yes.

The link to Washington Post's article by Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen is an excellent piece describing the fantasy in which the Democrats are living, as Obama continues to chase that big white whale. The Heritage Foundation writes about the blind ambition of these Democrats:

Obamacare at Any CostThe Heritage Foundation, March 12, 2010

Yesterday the White House circulated a memo by pollster Joel Benenson. It was designed to create momentum for Obamacare by convincing wayward House Democrats that support for the President's plan has been building since the State of the Union. As with everything else that comes out of the White House on health care these days, the memo is nothing but pure fantasy.

This Tuesday, Gallup released its latest poll showing that by a 48%-45% margin Americans would tell their representative in Congress to vote against President Obama's health plan. Compare that to the last time Gallup asked the question in January, Americans supported the President's plan 49%-46%. That's a net six point loss in support for the President's plan since the State of the Union. That is momentum. Against Obamacare.

And Gallup isn't alone. The Associated Press released a poll this week showing that 68% of Americans believe the President and Congressional Democrats shouldn't pass their health care plan without Republican support. "Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats' current health-care plan," Democratic pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen add in today's Washington Post, "A solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan."

Yesterday was particularly tough for the President's plan. First, the White House underwhelmed the Democratic Caucus in a presentation of the new (still unwritten) reconciliation bill. Then, the Senate Parliamentarian killed the Democrats favored procedural path for passage by signaling he would rule that President Obama must sign the original Senate bill into law before the Senate could act on the President's new reconciliation package. Finally, the Associated Press reported that House leaders have abandoned all hope of finding language to satisfy Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-MI) concerns that the Senate bill funds abortion. By the end of the day, the leftist firedoglake site had dropped its count of committed House Democrats for passage to 189 (Speaker Pelosi needs 216 for passage).

With the loss of Stupak and his 7-12 member caucus opposed to taxpayer-funded-abortions, Speaker Pelosi will have to find the remaining dozen plus votes from the ranks of cost conscious Blue Dog Democrats. For example, Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) who voted against the House bill in the fall explained at the time: "According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House health care bill will actually increase federal health care spending over the long term, while proposals being considered by the Senate would have a net decrease." But according to a new CBO score of the Senate bill passed on Christmas Eve (the one with the Cornhusker Kickback), it actually increases health care spending. And the reconciliation bill only make things worse, since, among other increased spending measures, President Obama "fixed" the Cornhusker Kickback not by eliminating the new spending, but by extending it to all 50 states.

With no votes piling up, and "yes" votes materializing, the Democratic plans to shove Obamacare down the throats of the American people are becoming more and more desperate. This Monday, the House Budget Committee will begin markup on the new reconciliation bill even though actual legislative text does not exist for it yet. The Democrats plan to pass a shell of a bill through the appropriate committees so that the Rules Committee can then substitute the bill that is being drafted completely behind closed doors by the White House and Senate and Democrat leaders.

Politico reports that despite the Parliamentarian's initial verbal ruling, they will press on with their Slaughter Rule plan to pass the Senate bill without voting on it. NRO's Yuval Levin quips: "Democratic leaders should be asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that their strategy is to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it."

But President Obama's progressive base is way past rational thought when it comes to health care. They want it passed at any cost. And as George Will pointed out yesterday, the very essence of progressivism sublimates the democratic process to the rule of experts in Washington. No one can say if this bill will finally pass, but if it does, it is abundantly clear that our republican form of government will be permanently damaged by it.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Being a very young single mother during the mid-60s and 70s, my liberal upbringing took a beating and got a breath of reality. As I struggled on my own (without depending on anyone or any government) to keep a roof over my little boy's head, food on the table, and clothes on his back, I watched young people collecting welfare, food stamps, free clinics, free eye-glasses, asking me for "some change", while marching themselves in protest of the government that gave them these freebies. College campuses were another great stage for more protests, and let us never forget the likes of Hanoi Hannah, Jane Fonda.

These hypocrites (hippies for short) are now running our government, and are very close to their lifelong goal of redistributing wealth by destroying our economy. But in the process, they have underestimated the American spirit, inbred for many generations, now fighting back to preserve the American Dream and our Founding Father's vision.

Dennis Prager writes an excellent piece, while on holiday in Morocco, where he is witnessing first hand the destruction of our dollar.

As reported by The Washington Post, "President Obama's proposed budget would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday."

CNN adds, "Of that amount, an estimated $5.6 trillion will be in interest alone."

The Post continues: "The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) and the White House (are) ... both predicting a deficit of about $1.5 trillion this year -- a post-World War II record at 10.3 percent of the overall economy. But the CBO is considerably less optimistic about future years, predicting that deficits would never fall below 4 percent of the economy under Obama's policies and would begin to grow rapidly after 2015.

"Deficits of that magnitude would force the Treasury to continue borrowing at prodigious rates, sending the national debt soaring to 90 percent of the economy by 2020, the CBO said."

CNN adds that "By 2020 the (CBO) estimates debt held by the public would reach $20.3 trillion, or 90 percent of GDP. That's up from 53 percent of GDP in 2009."

I suspect that most Americans, if asked whether these numbers trouble the Democratic leadership and President Obama, would answer in the affirmative.

They would be wrong.

They would be wrong not because the Democratic Party or the president are economically illiterate or bad individuals, but because the Democratic Party and the president are leftists. And most Americans, including most Democrats, do not understand the left. They may understand liberalism; but President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and most Democratic representatives and senators are not liberals; they are leftists. And most Americans do not understand the difference between liberal and left. They do not realize, for example, that there is no major difference between the American Democratic Party and the leftist social democratic parties of Western Europe. They do not know that from Karl Marx to Obama, the left (as opposed to liberals) has never created wealth because it has never been interested in creating wealth; it is interested in redistributing wealth.

Therefore, unprecedented and unsustainable debt, a debt that will negatively affect most Americans' quality of life, renders the dollar increasingly undesirable, and undermines America's prestige and power in the world -- these developments do not particularly disturb the left. They may trouble the president, the Democratic Party, and others on the left on some political level, but that pales in comparison to what the left really wants: a huge government overseeing a giant welfare state and a country with far fewer rich Americans.

Achieving those goals is far more important than preventing a decline in the American quality of life. The further left one goes, the more contempt one has for the present quality of American life in any event. The left regularly mocks many of the symbols of that life -- from the three-bedroom suburban house surrounded by a white picket fence to owning an SUV (or almost any car) because Americans should be traveling on public buses, trains and bicycles.

As for the dollar, I can bear personal testimony to the decline of the dollar's prestige. I am writing this column in Morocco. In Casablanca, my wife and I and another couple hired a Moroccan driver for the day. And when it came time to pay, the man refused to accept dollars; he wanted to be paid in either Euros or Moroccan dirhams. Yes, dirhams rather than dollars. But the demise of the dollar as the world's currency disturbs the left as much as does America's not getting a gold medal in curling at the Winter Olympics.

And as for America wielding less power in the world, that is a positive development for the American left. It is the world community as embodied in the United Nations that should wield power throughout the world, not an "overstretched," "imperialist" and "militarist" United States.

I used to believe that left and right have similar goals for America, that they just differed in the means they wanted used to get there. I was mistaken. The left has a very different vision of America than those who hold the founding values of America, most especially individualism and small government. And if the price of a once in a lifetime possibility of getting to a giant welfare state dominated by the left is America's steep financial decline, that is a price fully worth paying.

All aspects of President Obama's Chicago-style tactics are on display as he cajoles, bullies, and bribes the House to pass his health care proposals despite the overwhelming public rejection with which they have been met.

To some, he offers bribes. Congressman Jim Matheson, endangered species - a Utah Democrat - succeeded in getting his brother Scott appointed to a federal judgeship. Matheson voted against Obamacare when it first passed the House. With his new-found winnings in his pocket, he now professes to be undecided. He faces a clear conflict between his district and his conscience on the one hand and the bribe to his brother on the other. The conscience will probably lose.

Matheson supports his party 91% of the time according to the Washington Post even though McCain got 58% of the vote in his district in 2008. But Matheson got re-elected - by professing independence from the Democratic Party's liberal line - with 63% of the vote, so he probably figures he can sneak in a vote for health care and still con his district into re-electing him. After all, he's not heavy. He's my brother.

Even as Matheson basks in the glow of presidential bribery, Eric Massa, a renegade Democrat from the Southern Tier of New York State faces his wrath. Massa's sin was to vote against Obamacare. So Pelosi and the ethically-challenged House Ethics Committee are investigating him for "verbally abusing" a male member of his staff. In this age of more serious offenses, using "salty language" to express his displeasure with staff work would not seem to rank high on the list of indictable offenses. If it were, Lyndon Johnson would have been impeached. But Massa is being hung out to dry as an example to other would-be independent minded Democrats. The attacks on him have gotten so bad that Massa has announced his retirement after only one term in office.

But there is a reward waiting for House members who ignore the wishes and interests of their constituents and vote for Obama's health care proposals. Alan Mollohan has had a pesky FBI investigation hanging over his head for a few years. Now, presto, right before the health care vote, it went away. The Justice Department, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, announced that the FBI was closing the inquiry.

Mollohan's sin? He pushed for earmarks for nonprofit enterprises in his district and then went into a real estate deal in Florida with the head of the company under financial terms that were distinctly favorable to the Congressman. But Mollohan toes the party line and is now getting his unjust reward.

With health care reform coming up for a vote in the next few days, such tactics send a message to the House where Pelosi is having trouble lining up her votes: That Obama will do anything - anything at all - to pass this bill.

For those of us without judgeships or the FBI at our disposal, we can only call and write the swing Congressmen (go to DickMorris.com for a list and their phone numbers) or donate to the League of American Voters to step up its fierce media offensive in their districts to urge them to vote no.

"We need to see where people stand. And we need all of you to help us win that vote. So I need you to knock on doors. Talk to your neighbors. Pick up the phone... [W]e need you to make your voices heard all the way in Washington, D.C."

That means President Obama's strategy depends on one thing...

...Our SILENCE!

Obama knows public opinion is against him (the polls consistently show that a majority of Americans oppose ObamaCare). If a representative sampling of Americans contacted members of Congress, then most phone calls,
faxes and emails would OPPOSE ObamaCare and their fast-track timeline would be derailed.

So he is counting on our silence while resorting to campaign-style efforts to rally his troops -- the far left ideologues from his presidential run and groups like MoveOn.

As I shared with you a few days ago, that strategy appears to be working. Here's what a trusted contact on Capitol Hill reported:

"We just left [a member of Congress'] office and while we were waiting, their phones were going crazy demanding... support for health care... Get everyone you can to call or fax or email."

This contact also said the odds of ObamaCare passing have risen dramatically in the past week. And now the targeted House vote is just 10 days away.

I know many in the Grassfire Nation have stepped forward and sent many, many faxes. If you can send faxes again, please consider doing so.

If you have never sent faxes to your members of Congress, NOW IS THE TIME.

You can use our FaxFire system to send this message right now to your two Senators, your Rep AND the President -- and MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! Go here
to schedule your faxes.

(As always, we provide all the information for you to send your own faxes if you prefer. Just click the above link.)

Friday, March 5, 2010

The Heritage Foundation has a terrific piece on the true state of our unemployment:

Are Americans More Dependent On the Government?by Amanda Reinecker, March 5, 2010

One of the pernicious consequences of ever-larger government is the increasing dependence of the population on the government for their well-being and livelihood. To drive this point home, experts in The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis set out to answer the question, "are Americans more dependent on their government?" Their answer: Yes.

But what sets this year apart from the others, writes Beach, is that "all of the evidence points to even more rapid increases in dependency ahead, which well could threaten democratic government." This is particularly true because America faces the pending mass retirement of the Baby Boom generation, as well as an increase in the number of people who pay no taxes whatsoever.

Since his inauguration, President Obama has worked to expand the size and scope of the federal government, rapidly deepening and expanding the reliance of the American people on federal programs. Perhaps the most prominent example of this is the President's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — a.k.a. the "stimulus" — which essentially reversed welfare reform and reestablished dependency. The Left's health care "reform" would only make the problem worse.

"Americans should be concerned" about this year's Index, writes Beach. "Dependence on the federal government for life's many challenges strips civil society of its historical and necessary role in providing aid and renewal through the intimate relationships of family, community, and local institutions and governments."

Some fear that America is nearing a tipping point in the relationship between government and the private civic associations that have for so long defined our nation. But Beach believes this year's index score shows, "we've reached that point."

A brighter unemployment forecast? Not yet

According to the latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed another 36,000 jobs in February, leaving the unemployment rate steady at 9.7 percent. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the fact that "only 36,000 people lost their jobs today … is really good." Now, The Heritage Foundation strongly believes in looking on the bright side of things. But only when there is a bright side.

Obama promised that if elected he would create 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 through new economic policies, beginning with the enactment of a massive economic stimulus package. Accompanying his jobs promise, the President also emphasized accountability and measuring his presidency by results. The result of the President's jobs promise means total employment which in February stood at 129.5 million should be at least 137.8 million by the end of 2010, leaving the Obama jobs deficit at almost 8.3 million jobs.

This deficit, coupled with a forecast for 10 percent unemployment rates over the next two years, illustrates the failure of President Obama's "stimulus" package and underscores the need to explore economic policies that aren't dependent on increased spending and borrowing. (The bill for such policies, of course, is paid ultimately by the taxpayer.) Instead, Washington should truly "jump-start job creation," as the President has stated, by providing businesses with incentives to invest and take risks in pursuit of opportunity.

Individuals and businesses aren't starting new endeavors, investing, hiring new workers, or expanding into new markets because of their economic concerns and fears about intrusive new federal controls.

If lawmakers are really interested in getting the economy back on track, writes Foster, "the first step is to fire Washington's job destruction machine" and adopt pro-growth polices. Then maybe we'd see a brighter turn of events.